5 ms·

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; mayb

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize. When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.

dgzl 7y ago
It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people. It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all. No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
  - chrisdhoover 7y ago
    Property rights are the foundation of the US. Calling it a privilege is a complete misunderstanding of history. We are not serfs subordinate to a lord. We are not comrades subordinate to a politburo. We are citizens. As it was written in its early form, we believe in life, liberty and property.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      You're fine then with one person owning all the property?
      - dgzl 7y ago
        If they acquire it legally, then who are any of us to object?
        anticensor 7y ago
        If one person onws everything, he is de facto the government.
- brianpgordon 7y ago
  I don't really want to get drawn into this because – again – I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I have to point out that just because you're able to do something today doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" that needs to be "stripped" from you. We adopt reasonable legislation all of the time which restricts legal activity in various ways. When the SEC issues guidance on some little-known regulation that affects the way that hedge funds are allowed to account for certain trading costs, nobody worries that important rights are being eroded. Their investment activities will be a little bit more restricted, but they have tons of money anyway and they have plenty of other options. Maybe you can see by analogy why I wouldn't be terribly impressed by owners of multiple California properties crying about their rights if some reasonable light-touch restrictions were added that slightly threatened their future revenues.
  - dgzl 7y ago
    Yes I've noticed that many times people don't feel the need to defend other people's rights because it wouldn't also affect them directly.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      I would be forced to sell many pieces of property I do not want to sell if my ideas were implemented. I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.
      - dgzl 7y ago
        You definitely have rights to your property, it's one of the most important ideas established in the Constitution. It's also your right to give that property away if you like.
        anon1m0us 7y ago
        You need to consider the difference between something being right and something being a right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]” -- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.
magduf 7y ago
I don't see why it's the government's job (at state/federal levels) to fix a local problem like this. If anything, I think if the state government is going to do anything, it should help service workers relocate to more affordable places and find good work there. Let the Bay Area real estate market collapse.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  It's a chicken/egg problem. The jobs are in the cities. The population density in other areas makes it even harder. People move to the cities for jobs because there aren't any where they are from.f
  - magduf 7y ago
    Incorrect. Yes, the jobs are in the cities, but there are many other cities besides the Bay Area. In most other cities, lower-paid people (e.g. service workers) are able to find places to live. What we're talking about here is a problem mostly unique to the Bay Area. I'm simply advocating that all the service workers relocate to other cities. I live in the DC area; there's tons of restaurants and other businesses here where service people work, and while housing is relatively expensive, we don't seem to have the problems with it for lower-paid people that the Bay Area has.

dgzl 7y ago

It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.

anon1m0us 7y ago
Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people. It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all. No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
- chrisdhoover 7y ago
  Property rights are the foundation of the US. Calling it a privilege is a complete misunderstanding of history. We are not serfs subordinate to a lord. We are not comrades subordinate to a politburo. We are citizens. As it was written in its early form, we believe in life, liberty and property.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    You're fine then with one person owning all the property?
    - dgzl 7y ago
      If they acquire it legally, then who are any of us to object?
      - anticensor 7y ago
        If one person onws everything, he is de facto the government.
brianpgordon 7y ago
I don't really want to get drawn into this because – again – I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I have to point out that just because you're able to do something today doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" that needs to be "stripped" from you. We adopt reasonable legislation all of the time which restricts legal activity in various ways. When the SEC issues guidance on some little-known regulation that affects the way that hedge funds are allowed to account for certain trading costs, nobody worries that important rights are being eroded. Their investment activities will be a little bit more restricted, but they have tons of money anyway and they have plenty of other options. Maybe you can see by analogy why I wouldn't be terribly impressed by owners of multiple California properties crying about their rights if some reasonable light-touch restrictions were added that slightly threatened their future revenues.
- dgzl 7y ago
  Yes I've noticed that many times people don't feel the need to defend other people's rights because it wouldn't also affect them directly.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    I would be forced to sell many pieces of property I do not want to sell if my ideas were implemented. I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.
    - dgzl 7y ago
      You definitely have rights to your property, it's one of the most important ideas established in the Constitution. It's also your right to give that property away if you like.
      - anon1m0us 7y ago
        You need to consider the difference between something being right and something being a right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property Article 23 of the declaration states: “Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]” -- This is not the case with real estate in America. It isn't dignified.

magduf 7y ago

I don't see why it's the government's job (at state/federal levels) to fix a local problem like this. If anything, I think if the state government is going to do anything, it should help service workers relocate to more affordable places and find good work there. Let the Bay Area real estate market collapse.

anon1m0us 7y ago
It's a chicken/egg problem. The jobs are in the cities. The population density in other areas makes it even harder. People move to the cities for jobs because there aren't any where they are from.f
- magduf 7y ago
  Incorrect. Yes, the jobs are in the cities, but there are many other cities besides the Bay Area. In most other cities, lower-paid people (e.g. service workers) are able to find places to live. What we're talking about here is a problem mostly unique to the Bay Area. I'm simply advocating that all the service workers relocate to other cities. I live in the DC area; there's tons of restaurants and other businesses here where service people work, and while housing is relatively expensive, we don't seem to have the problems with it for lower-paid people that the Bay Area has.